The Change We Need

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. - Barack Obama

As John McCain’s so-called “campaign” continues to degenerate to a series of unfounded, vitriolic, and inflammatory accusations against Barack Obama as a person, perhaps it’s a good time to reflect on the one thing both sides seem to agree on: change is needed. That, at least, is an idea that seems to resonate.

So what kind of change do we need?

Let's begin by reminding ourselves that when a complex problem needs to be solved, there are virtually always more than two ways to go about it. Unfortunately, here in America, our democracy is firmly locked into a two-party system. Anyone outside the two mainstream organizations who makes a serious run for public office is viewed in one of two ways: a hopelessly unrealistic idealist (at best) or a crackpot who can’t fit into any of the established niches (at worst).

There have been times when this either-or system seemed to work well—usually when the country has been threatened by outside forces and, like a fractious family, came together in a spirit of “one-for-all-and-all-for-one.” That happened during World War II and, perhaps most recently, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

During times of relative peace and prosperity, however, we Americans tend to be led around by the nose by people—be they Presidents or pastors—who are passionate, or even fanatical, about one idea. Everyone is labeled either “pro” or “con,” “right” or “wrong,” “with us” or “agin us.” When things go wrong—as they most certainly have, in every aspect of public life, in recent years—we waste precious time and resources laying blame and trying to defend the old, tired ideas espoused by our own party.

So here’s the change we need: a president who’s not a traditional Democrat or Republican. Who brainstorms with anyone who has the brains, background, and creativity to offer viable solutions. Who can build consensus. Who can inspire ordinary people to participate in whatever way they can, large or small. Who is skilled at listening to all sides of an argument and forging a compromise that’s better than the status quo and that everyone can live with.

Focusing on one idea is a convenient substitute for thinking, and stirring up hate and contempt for people with different points of view is much easier than doing the intellectual work necessary to solve problems. Any lack of progress can be blamed on those idiots on other side of the equation who persist in not seeing things our way.

So as a nation, we need to stop being defensive, blaming others for our mistakes, and avoiding responsibility. We need to grow up. And we need a leader who inspires us to do that.

"Palling Around"

Boy, it’s a good thing I’m not running for public office. I’ve worked in the same building since 1991, with roughly the same 140 or so adults—give or take a few who’ve come and gone over the years. I know of some who’ve got skeletons in the closet, and I have my suspicions about some of the others.

I work with approximately 400 high school students every year—and an American high school is the world’s biggest melting pot. I know kids who’ve gone on to be doctors, lawyers, clerks, teachers, welders, business owners, and crooks. I’ve visited a few of them in jail. And that’s not to mention the clients I’ve met in private practice who, let’s face it, seldom seek me out because things are going well.

The likes of John McCain and his cronies (I’ll use that word because he seems to like it) could have a field day.

Barack Obama has been a volunteer social worker, student, lawyer, law professor, author, legislator, and Senator. I’m sure he’s met, talked with, and worked next to some real shady characters.

And all they come up with is William Ayers—a man who, regardless of what he may have done in his youth, has been a law-abiding citizen for decades now?

What about the economy? What about the war? What about the environment? What about energy independence? What about America’s reputation and standing in the world?

While his opponent is addressing these issues through reason, persuasion, and consultation with experts, John McCain is deliberately stirring up anger, suspicion and hatred. His whole campaign strategy has become trying, by any means whatever, to tear down the reputation of a reputable man—and it’s obvious he doesn’t care who he hurts in the process.

Yes, sadly it’s true. Barack Obama has collaborated with a dishonest, deluded, and destructive man. He met him at work in the United States Senate. That man is John McCain.

Education of the Candidates

Sam's remarks, posted on MSNBC, took the words right out of my mouth. He wrote:

Subject: FW: Food for Thought

You are The Boss... which team would you hire?

With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an unusually critical election year. The idea of “leadership” must be broadened from mere “experience” to include knowledge, learnedness and insight.

Let's look at the educational background of your two options:

Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

& Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

& Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism

Now, which team are you going to hire ?

SAM, USA (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:26 AM)

Thanks, Sam!

In a Pig's Eye

“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
–Robert Heinlein

While the McCane campaign seems to be stubbornly and obsessively stuck on the subject of pigs, I thought it might be an appropriate time to suggest that the Republican Party consider changing its mascot. Elephants are noble creatures, but pigs are so personable—and so quintessentially American. (How many elephants do you see in the American heartland?)

Just think how well the noble pig would represent the current character of the GOP.

First, pigs like to wallow in mud. In 2006, factcheck.org, which keeps track of these things, made the following statement about the National Republican Campaign Committee’s TV ads: “What stood out . . . was a pronounced tendency to be petty and personal, and sometimes careless with the facts.” That certainly seems to characterize the current presidential campaign, in which the Republicans wasted days trying to accuse Obama of sexism for using a common expression—one that McCain himself has used to make a similar point.

Second, pigs will swallow anything. Since “change” seems to be a concept that resonates with the American people right now (for obvious reasons), McCain has taken to calling himself an agent of change. As many others have pointed out, he’s voted for Bush’s initiatives more than 90% of the time. How can a man who’s always identified so closely with George Bush now expect us to believe that he’ll somehow turn the great ship of state around and do things differently? We’ve asked, Senator Obama has asked, and McCane has refused to answer. He’d rather talk about lipstick and pigs.

Finally, pigs don’t do a whole lot of thinking. Mr. McCane has stated that he doesn’t know much about the economy. Ms. Palin believes in creationism but not global warming. George Bush has long since admitted that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (signifying that our brave American troops have been fighting the battle against terrorism in the wrong place and for the wrong reasons). But McCane thinks we can “win” the Iraq war. (What does “win” mean?) We’ve got assertions, slogans, and quips from the Republicans. From Barack Obama, we’ve got deep analysis that can really help us understand what needs to be done for America and the world. (If you don’t believe me, read his book, The Audacity of Hope.)

Today’s Republican Party is the tight group of insiders that have brought the country to where it is today—economically, militarily, and in the eyes of the world. John McCane thinks he can teach this pig to sing.

To this, I say hog wash.

You Don't Think She Wrote It, Do You?

In 1967, I was a winner in the Spokane area American Legion Oratorical Contest. I still remember the thesis statement of my seven-minute speech, which was based on a quote by Thomas Jefferson: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

I spent weeks writing the speech, and untold hours repeating it in front of mirrors, before I nervously presented it to my high school debate class. The audience picked it apart. I rewrote parts of it, memorized the changes, and presented it again. By the time the contest rolled around, I could say it in my sleep. My biggest challenge was making the speech sound off-the-cuff, as though I was making impromptu remarks. When I stepped off the stage, I felt an enormous sense of triumph. Win or lose, I’d tackled a daunting task and pulled it off. Later, I would become a debate coach and talk other young people into torturing themselves in a similar fashion.

I know a thing or two about speech making. So after Sarah Palin’s triumphant performance at the Republican National Convention, it took me a few days to realize why some people were so impressed: they thought she wrote the speech!

Trust me, she didn’t.

Didn’t you hear the echoes? That speech was constructed by the same speech writers who have put the words into George Bush’s mouth for the past eight years and who are now the handlers for John McCain. Those clever little quips—the lipstick, the “actual responsibility”? Made by committee. (Barack Obama, by contrast, writes his own speeches, long hand, on yellow legal pads.)

As for delivery, I could have done it in a few days, too, if they’d had Teleprompters back then (or allowed them to be used in oratorical contests).

I’m not saying Sarah Palin didn’t do a bang-up job of presenting the speech. She’s a good little actress and delivered her lines well. And nature—in the form of Hurricane Gustav—gave her an extra day to practice.

But that doesn’t mean she’s qualified to be President—not even close.

Hitler made great speeches, too.

When we allow ourselves to be moved by political rhetoric, it’s important to consider the source.

Slinging Mud

When children fight, things can get ugly. They may call each other names, throw anything they can get their hands on, and scream so the other person can’t be heard. Responsible adults, seeing that kind of behavior, usually intervene to give the kids a little lesson in good citizenship.

But what can we do when the ruffians are allegedly adults? How can we protect our democracy when the hoodlums have the power to vote?

Since the presidential conventions, I’ve been browsing the editorials to see what people are saying. It’s the time for national dialogue about so many crucial issues that affect every one of us: the U.S. economy, jobs, education, health care, the health of the planet. After the editorials, come the comments. Some are reasonable remarks that contribute meaningful facts or insights. But all too often, they are vicious, hate-filled attacks on the person of a candidate the writer knows nothing about. Undoubtedly that’s occurring on both sides of the bipartisan debate. But it certainly seems to me that it’s people who call themselves Republicans who are doing most of the screaming and name calling.

Just in the past half hour, I found snide and sarcastic remarks alluding to Senator Obama’s religious affiliation, voting record, and occupations, as well as to Senator Biden’s ability connect with everyday people. In each case, it was obvious that the writer didn’t have the facts and was simply slinging incendiary words (like “Islamic”) and second hand rumors (like “All he’s ever done is . . .”). What about the energy problem? What about the war? What about bin Laden?

In a perfect world, all citizens who vote would be able to pass a little quiz to ensure that they at least have a few basic facts on which to base a decision. In the absence of such a policy, I guess those of us who think and reason have to work just a little bit harder to quietly speak our truth to those who don’t. Sometimes seeds of understanding can take root, even in hostile soil.

Sputnik

I was a small child when the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957--still at the age when recess was the highlight of the school day for me and my friends. Current world events were rarely deemed worthy of our attention. In this case, though, we all knew something extraordinary had happened: there was something in the night sky that people--strange people in a faraway place--had put there. Of all those tiny points of light, one was blinking and doing loops around the planet.

As a child of the space age, my life was probably affected by Sputnik in more ways than I can imagine. When history turns a corner, we never know what might have happened if it had taken another road. But two things became apparent fairly quickly:

1) Adults were frightened. Our tribal enemies had inexplicably become more powerful.

2) We were somehow inadequate. There was a sense, which penetrated all the way down to the third grade, that we either weren't learning the right stuff or we weren't learning it well enough. We lost art class and started doing more arithmetic.

On another extraordinary day, in 1967, I was at my job in a small trailer beside the largest building in the world: The Boeing Company's manufacturing hanger in Everett, Washington. No one was working. Portable black-and-white TV sets (color sets were still rare) had been hauled in and set up on drafting tables, wires run to the nearest outlets, stools arranged so that everyone could see a screen. To this day, I remember the awe and pride we all felt when Neil Armstrong's boot touched lunar soil. If they had never been repeated, I would still remember some of the words that were spoken that day: "The Eagle has landed," "One small step . . . ."

I was still a kid. I looked around the room at some of the senior members of my group--engineers who had designed and built the 747, that monstrosity of metal which somehow, miraculously, stayed aloft. I knew that it was people like them--with similar skills and education--who had made this thing happen. I knew then that I--and my generation--had been had.

The American engineers, designers, and programmers who put humans on the moon were, for the most part, at least fifteen or twenty years older than I was. They had not had the benefit of the emergency curriculum reform that forced my generation to do all those extra math problems.

Looking back, though, I count myself lucky. We lost art class. Many of today's kids are also losing recess.